“Cases such as LuxLeaks demonstrate that corruption has moved to another level”

On 20 February, the UAB Group in Parliamentary History (GHP) organised a conference with Frédéric Monier, professor of contemporary history at Université d'Avignon et des Pays de Vaucluse, on the study of corruption and how it was perceived throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Monier is one of the main researchers, together with Olivier Dard (Université de la Sorbonne) and Jens Ivo Engels (Universität Darmstadt), who put into motion a research programme on the analysis of corruption in modern Europe and in which the UAB Group in Parliamentary History participates.

 

Gemma Rubí, lecturer from the UAB Department of Modern and Early Modern History and member of the GHP, presided the event in which Monier reviewed the evolution of the concept of corruption and virtue from Montesquieu's western political thought to the present time and in the historiography of this topic. According to Monier, the underlying question is not exactly about corruption, but about the "political system of values" behind both corrupt practices and how we perceive them.

 

Is there more political corruption today than in the past?
 

What has changed is the sensitivity towards it. We may be less tolerant towards certain practices of interest and traffic of influences because our expectations are higher now. I think there is also some kind of globalisation of influences and interests. For example: the LuxLeaks case (the role of Jean-Claude Juncker in Luxemburg, the extremely low taxes paid by large multinationals, etc.) clearly demonstrate that political influences and corruption have moved to another level. Therefore, practices have changed and so have our values.

 

Since when is corruption linked to the funding of political parties?

 

Since political leader began to organise parties. They can no longer offer favours and advantages through their own personal assets and they cannot depend only on personal wealth so they are obliged to use a collective political force. It is then when a political life must be financed and, as time goes by, it begins to cost more and more.

 

In the book Corruption et politique: rien de nouveau? (Armand Colin, 2011) you speak about the Woerth-Bettencourt case. What impact did it have?
 

There were two consequences. In the short term, the scandal was used as a strategic weapon to discredit the retirement reform being promoted by Éric Woerth (Minister for Employment under Nicolas Sarkozy). In the mid term, it undoubtedly contributed to the victory of François Hollande in the 2102 elections. Nicolas Sarkozy was no longer seen as being incorruptible, as a fresh and new person amidst the old world of politics.

 

Are people more sensitive to the problems of corruption because they are better informed?

 

There are more sources of information available, yes. However, there are growing social and cultural differences between different media. The richest and most influential people own a great amount of the information sources. Not so lucky people, in turn, still depend on the television and other more traditional means.

 

You say in your book that sensitivity towards this phenomenon is also related to the practices of ordinary people.

 

The results of some sociological questionnaires by Gallup or Transparency International show that the sensitivity to corruption depends also on our point of view on the little things and services we can request from our politicians.

 

Sometimes it seems that left-wing people are more demanding with their representatives. What is your opinion on that?

 

The political cultures of the right and left are not the same. But at the same time, I cannot say that left-wing parties are always honest or incorruptible. What do exist are cultures which vary on what they consider, traditionally, to be acceptable and what not. For example: for a long time, French socialists refused to accept honorary decorations conferred onto them (Legion of Honour, etc.). But for a right-wing person, to receive a decoration is an honour.

 

How have academic studies on the issue of corruption changed in recent years?

 

Since the beginning of 2000, corruption was a problem in each country and of a specific historical moment. For example: in Spain, the despotism following Franco's death or current problems; in France, the corruption of the Third Republic and public scandals; in Germany, the problem with the Weimar Republic, etc. At the beginning of the 21st century, we began to see the first studies stating that this was not a problem of only one country or one historical moment. Therefore, we need to make comparisons. And that's how a new historiography appeared.

 

You work on an ambitious research programme on the analysis of corruption in modern Europe.

 

It is a way to discuss issues with colleagues from the UAB and other European countries: Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Portugal, Norway, etc. It is the proof that this is not only a current issue, but an interesting topic from a scientific point of view.